Meanwhile, my reply back to the most boring senator in the known universe after his auto-reply;

Dear Mr. Casey,

Thank you for the acknowledgement of our communications with your auto-reply, but I think we have a problem here - and I know that you don’t want to be a problem to your constituency here in Pennsylvania.

First off to your opening points, Yes – we are ALL horrified and repulsed by the events in Newtown.

But… What was being hidden behind a smokescreen of anti-gun rhetoric is the fact that a vidiot-gaming nutcase took his mother’s LEGAL guns - purchased and owned LEGALLY under onerous Connecticut laws – and then ILLEGALLY used them to ILLEGALLY kill his own mother before ILLEGALLY killing the Sandy Hook children.

What part of ILLEGAL action is not understood here?

The mother’s body hadn’t even officially been discovered yet before Biden’s anti-gun ghouls were already in the cameras relishing the Sandy Hook blood to push their agenda against LEGAL guns.

I am not going to get into the Second Amendment/Founding Fathers yadda yadda – as I know that YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND exactly what “shall not be infringed” means. And we intend to hold you to it.

If it appears you did not understand “shall not be infringed”, we – as your employers here in PA - will arrange during the next election to give you ample time away from work to learn about the Second Amendment.

To be sure; YOU do not have the political capital to survive going against US voters here in Pennsylvania - your EMPLOYERS - the ones who ELECTED YOU.
As for the others;

• Crazy Uncle Joe Biden has NOTHING to lose with his dimwitted double-barrel blathering – he’ll fade into the sunset to go play pinochle with wacky Howard Dean.
• Obama has NOTHING to lose; he will dethrone Klinton as the official orator of the left.
• Chuck Schumer will remain “in like Flynt” unless proven to be an agent for Hamas.

But for you; we will be watching YOUR vote, and we too, will vote. So unless YOU intend for your privileged Senate career to end with a run for election as a dogcatcher – you need to stand tall and VOTE AGAINST ANY new gun control laws of any kind introduced in the Senate.

Understand that this isn’t like the pointless “ban laws” of the past – we have the Internet now for fast, mass communications. I intend to make sure my message to YOU is posted to every message board I know of so that fellow gun owners know of this.

We are and will be watching – and voting.

Sincerely,

Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about recent proposals related to guns. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system. As lawmakers consider an appropriate response to this challenging issue, we should consider all of the factors that could prevent such heinous acts.

As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not unduly abridge the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.

Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On January 17, 2012, President Obama unveiled a package of proposals to reduce gun violence, which included strengthening the system of background checks, reinstating the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines ban, improving school safety and expanding access to mental health services. I look forward to reviewing these proposals in detail and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.

On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would explicitly permit the possession of affected firearms that were owned prior to the bill’s enactment; firearms that are manually operated; firearms used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and antique weapons. Further, this legislation lists 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are entirely exempt from the ban.

This legislation would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of seven specified military features. S. 150 would further ban semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of certain listed military features, as well as ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The Assault Weapons Ban would also regulate the transfer and storage of permitted, grandfathered weapons and allow local law enforcement to use certain federal funds for voluntary gun buyback programs. The Assault Weapons Ban was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that should this legislation come before the full Senate for consideration, I will have your views in mind.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/
__________________
In a victim nation, a classroom full of dead children is morally superior to a teacher holding a smoking gun knowing she just protected her students.

__________________
In a victim nation, a classroom full of dead children is morally superior to a teacher holding a smoking gun knowing she just protected her students.

Last edited by Tom Servo; February 11, 2013 at 09:43 PM.
Reason: Just...wow.

Pro-rights and anti-rights attention has been focused on the tremendous list of guns that would be banned under Feinstein’s bill, which takes up a significant portion of the 122 pages of this proposal.

Here’s the problem none of the “news” reports have spotted:

The list of guns doesn’t matter.
Magazine size doesn’t matter.
If the semi-auto firearm has anything to grip it by, it is banned.
It’s very clever actually.

According to the bill, any semiautomatic firearm that uses a magazine — handgun, rifle or shotgun — equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned. That sounds like a limitation, but it is not.

A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as “a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked!

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.